Should We Tie All Future P M's Hands Before We Start?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-calls-for-war-powers-act-in-wake-of-syria-airstrikes-11332225
I can just imagine it in the future, if we are under attack, shall we defend? Nope lets recall parliament for a 10 hour chin wag PMSL!

[Zacs-Master]

Typical Corbyn cowardly conscientious objector rubbish.

[jim360]

Even Thatcher went to Parliament in order to pursue the Falklands War -- but then, she had the safety of a majority, I suppose (and, for the record, she also had the safety of being absolutely correct to want to go to war to defend British territory!).

For a single air strike, supported by allies, and with no apparent military follow-up, I am not sure that there's a need to consult Parliament, but certainly she should be prepared to defend the decision to them, and be accountable if they do not agree.

Otherwise, what is our democracy if not a joke, at the whim of only a single person or a small team? If we were to pursue further military action in Syria, of course it stands to reason that May should ask Parliament. Not only because in that case she'd be virtually legally obliged to do so anyway, but also because morally, aggressive wars ought to require consensus.

There's no need to pretend that Parliament stands in the way of defending our country if it came under attack, and it's a rather deliberate red herring on your part.

Also, for the record, I haven't any complaints about the British strikes per se. I just fear it's too little, too late, and I don't anticipate anything else to follow it. Most likely it's just an attempt to pretend that the West are doing something; there wasn't a follow-up to the Cruise missile strikes Trump ordered a year ago either.

[ChillDoubt]

He makes himself look more stupid each passing day, which even by his standards is quite a feat.

[Zacs-Master]

Jim, Royal Prerogative:
The power to commit troops in armed conflict is one of the remaining Royal Prerogatives – that is powers that are derived from the Crown rather than conferred on them by Parliament. There is no codified parliamentary procedure that formally requires the Government to seek approval before taking military action. The Prime Minister and Cabinet retain the constitutional right to decide when and where to authorise action.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/parliament-royal-prerogative-and-decisions-go-war

[jim360]

True, although I suspect Cameron's decision in 2013 to consult Parliament for more extensive action has set a precedent that future Prime Ministers will feel obliged to pay attention to -- for more extensive action, at least. There's also the matter of international law, which it seems to be in our interests to follow as far as possible.

[Jackdaw33]

International law does not exist. Only a sovereign body can make laws. It is a chimera.

[ichkeria]

Corbyn is a disgrace. I’m all for parliamentary scrutiny and debate but this is just a ridiculous suggestion. A bill to effectively tie our legs together and put dunces hats on our head.

[Kromovaracun]

The idea is sensible but impractical - the USA has a similar requirement (though I don't recall its source), and the government simply gets around it by calling whatever they choose to do something other than "military action."

It is not "disgraceful" or "cowardly" to be opposed to war, or in particular to be opposed to the Syria airstrikes. Put your jingo drums away.

[murraymints]

let the Prime Minister..minister !! whomsoever that may be....

[waterboatman]

Quite minty. It's one of the powers the PM has.

[ichkeria]

By all means let’s take each case in its merits. The idea however that we would pass an act effectively tying our hands before any military action is crazy.
He effectively wants to place sanctions on our own government because of the crimes of other governments.

[Old_Geezer]

If one has time to debate a UK led or solo action, then fine. But the country's leader needs the flexibility to act immediately when deemed appropriate. They can be asked to justify later. In the Syria case justification is obvious & trivial and not worth wasting parliamentary time pursuing.

[youngmafbog]

Corbyn seems to have lost the plot, it he ever had it anyway.

In addition I dont think you can compare a one-off surprise sortie with engagement into a full scale war. If May had recalled Parliament and held a debate, it would have been watched by Syria and Russia whilst they moved the targets and got ready to shoot the planes down.

[ichkeria]

Exactly so OG. Parliament will be quizzing the PM today and that is as it should be

[youngmafbog]

//It is not "disgraceful" or "cowardly" to be opposed to war,//

It is when you sit in the comfort of your own home sniping at those risking their lives in order for you to do that.

[youngmafbog]

Agree OG.

[Kromovaracun]

//It is when you sit in the comfort of your own home sniping at those risking their lives in order for you to do that.//

I very much doubt any of them care in the slightest what random people on the internet have to say. Besides, I didn't realise our airstrikes in Syria were in defense of my freedom. I thought they were to punish an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government...

[dannyk13]

Kromo, the attack was nothing to do with punishment.It was done in order to deter Assad from any future use of chemical weapons.

[anotheoldgit]

It is easy to say this just as long as we have a reasonable PM, but what if we had the likes of Corbyn as PM, what then? Much better for decisions such as this to be put before Parliament.

[ichkeria]

If we had Corbyn as PM I doubt there would even be a debate because military action would be off the table. He’d be trying to get resolutions through the UN or agreeing to endless ‘inquiries’